J.C. Moore Online

Current events from a science perspective.

Dan Boren (D-OK) has made a number of ads critical of his Democratic primary opponent, Jim Wilson.  It bothers many Oklahomans that Boren appears to be just camouflaging himself as a Democrat because his father was a highly respected Democratic Governor and Senator. It’s not clear whether the acorn fell really far from the tree or if Boren’s ads represent what a Democrat has to do to be elected in Oklahoma. One ad showed Boren in new camouflage gear, tags still attached, cocking a gun at his opponent. However, the ads have not gone over well as State Senator Wilson, who Boren chastises as Oklahoma’s “most liberal” senator, was a combat marine in Vietnam.

An article recently appeared in the Daily KOS containing a video making fun of Boren’s ads and criticizing him for supporting a “Flat Tax” scheme. (1) True to form, in the tree scene in the video, Boren is wearing the unofficial state color – camouflage. He is the  only Democrat among 61 Republicans in Congress supporting the “Flat Tax”(or “Fair Tax”) scheme.

Boren apparently hasn’t thought that Flat Tax scheme through. My Congressman, Frank Lucas (R-OK), also favors a “Fair Tax” scheme that would replace income taxes with a national sales tax ( a consumption tax) (2). Boren says it would be a sales tax of 30%. It  may need to be higher for it to be “revenue neutral” as we have to raise a certain amount of revenue to support our government and that would not change. What the “Fair Tax” would change is that more of the tax burden would shift to the middle and lower income groups, those  already benefiting the least from state and federal tax cuts. (3)

While many like the idea of the Fair Tax’s simplicity, that may turn out not to be the case. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 was supposed to bring us “simplification” of  our income taxes but there is little evidence that it has worked. Adopting a national sales tax will have a ripple effect across our economy with unknown consequences. For instance, we would have to tax internet purchases and raise import duties to keep the wealthy from shopping overseas for major purchases.

Economist Mike Moffatt has worked out who would be the likely winners and losers under the Fair Tax proposal: (4)

Winners:

• People who are inclined to save: People who do not consume as much will benefit from the plan.
• People who can shop in other countries: People who take a lot of overseas vacations or living near the Canadian or Mexican borders.
• People who can avoid sales taxes: Those who can exchange or barter services and goods, or the unscrupulous who can buy for personal use and claim as a business use.
• The wealthiest one percent: They will see an average tax cut of about $75,000 per person.

Losers:

• The Poor: The working poor pay little income tax but they must spend a larger proportion of their income to survive. They’d pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than wealthier individuals.

• Families: Tax breaks such as dependent deductions, earned income credits and child care credits would disappear. It would hurt families with incomes less than $200,000 but help families with income above $200,000, due to the dramatic reduction in the top tax rate.

• Tax Accountants, IRS Employees and Income Tax Lawyers: Yes, but they’d survive somehow.

• Seniors: They’ve already paid a lifetime of income taxes and this would now tax them again on consumption as well. They would end up paying a disproportionate share of taxes.

Overall, the Fair Tax is fairer to some than to others, and it looks to be most fair to the wealthy. Our present graduated income tax code is based on the ideas that those who profit most from our country’s wealth, resources, and opportunities should pay a greater share of their bounty in taxes. The rich may not think that’s fair, but that’s fairer and more pragmatic than shifting more taxes to those who have little.

(1) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/3/881389/-Dan-BorenCongress-Worst-Democrat-Has-A-Primary

(2) For an in depth analysis of the consumption tax see:  http://mises.org/daily/1768

(3) For historical top tax rates see:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

(4) http://economics.about.com/cs/taxpolicy/a/fairtax_5.htm

Congressman Frank Lucas (R-OK), in Frankly Speaking (3/10/2010), wants to rein in what he calls “the EPA power grab” to limit carbon emissions. That is hardly the case. The Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. EPA, ordered the environmental protection agency to make a determination as to whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant. The EPA has found, based on the best scientific evidence, that CO2 is an endangerment to public health and has moved forward as instructed.

If Congress had acted to develop a sound energy policy and to curb pollution, the  EPA would not be forced to act in the matter. Regulation of carbon emissions would fall mainly on the coal industry and would favor a shift to petroleum and natural gas, both abundant in Oklahoma. However, all our  Republican Congressmen sat out the process and let the Democrats from coal producing states load up the cap-and-trade bill with perks for coal producing states. Some of  leaders see that limiting carbon emissions could be favorable to the Oklahoma economy, but apparently, our elected representatives have not caught on yet.

It is not just about the CO2 or climate change. Along with the 30 billion tons of CO2 we put into the air annually are large amounts of mercury, lead, cadmium, arsenic, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and radioactive isotopes of radon. Those end up in the air, the water, and the food chain. We are now finding mercury in fish and some places have limits on consumption. The oceans are now 20% more acidic and economically important fisheries are threatened. Whether we cap pollution, tax it, or strictly regulate it, something must be done and soon.

 Cap and trade reflects the “true cost” of using a resource as it includes the cost of cleaning up the environment and disposing of the waste. No one really knows what the cost of a cap-and-trade bill would be – or what the cost would be of doing nothing.  Cap-and-trade has worked successfully in the past to reduce acid rain blowing into Canada from Northeast power plants. It cost much, much less than the power companies claimed it would and even less than  the government estimated. Structured properly, cap-and-trade could actually be good for many sectors of the economy -including farmers.
 

For instance, Congressman Frank Lucas (R-OK) wrote in the Daily Oklahoman (6/21/09) that  cap-and- trade  is a tax and that  it would be especially bad for farmers. That isn’t necessarily so. The true cost of using a resource includes the cost of cleaning up the environment and disposing of the waste. Cap and trade isn’t a tax. It is a way of seeing  that those who  profit from a resource pay the “true cost”. Cap-and-trade  would require those who increase pollution to buy credits to do so while those who find ways to decrease pollution would receive credits. This would encourage entrepreneurship and provide the incentive for using our resources wisely.

 No one really knows what the cost of a cap-and-trade bill would be – or what the cost would be of doing nothing. There is one claim that it would cost each U.S. household $3,100 a year. That number was arrived at by doing additional math on a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study. However, John Reilly, the MIT economist who authored  the study, says that  number is wrong and is a misinterpretation of his work. There is also the claim that the cost of doing nothing will be higher in the long run because of resource scarcity and environmental damage. Its hard to put a cost on that. Either way, paying the true cost of hydrocarbon use is fair and would create incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

  Cap-and-trade has worked successfully in the past. It was used to reduce the U.S. sulfur dioxide emissions that produced acid rain in Canada – and, it turned out to be much less expensive than either the industry or the government predicted. In Oklahoma, Western Farmers Electric Co-op has voluntarily used cap-and-trade to offset its carbon emissions by encouraging farming practices that reduced emission. Structured properly, cap-and-trade could actually be good for farmers. Farming practices that reduce energy usage would not only save money but could earn farmers  credits that would add to their  profit.